The domain name, which
is the subject of the Complaint, is <ewalmart.com>.

The Registrar of the domain
name is Melbourne IT Limited of Level 2, 120 King Street, Melbourne, Victoria,
3000, Australia ("Melbourne IT").

3. Procedural History

The essential procedural
history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:

(a) The Complainant
initiated the proceeding by the filing of a Complaint, which was received by
the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") via e-mail
and in hardcopy on February 22, 2001. The Complainant elected to have the dispute
decided by a single member administrative panel.

(b) On February 27,
2001, the Center transmitted to Melbourne IT, via e-mail, a Request for Registrar
Verification in connection with the Complaint. On the same day, Melbourne IT
transmitted to the Center, via e-mail, Reply from Registrar. This stated that
the registrant is G.W. of 23 Oakfield Avenue, Glanmire. County Cork, Ireland,
that the administrative contact for the domain name is Mm Mmmm of the same address,
that the technical contact is Evan Weatherup of Elysium House, 126-128 New Kings
Road, Parsons Green, SW6 4LZ, London, United Kingdom and that the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy") applies to this domain name.

(c) On February 28,
2001, the Center verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements
of the Policy, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the
Rules") and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy of WIPO ("the Supplemental Rules") as required by Paragraph
4(a) of the Rules and Paragraph 5(a) of the Supplemental Rules. Payment in the
required amount has been made by the Complainant to the Center.

(d) On March 1, 2001,
the Center sent the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding and Complaint to the Respondent by post/courier (with enclosures)
and email (using details of the domain name registrant, administrative contact,
technical contact, zone contact and billing contact). The Center advised that
the Response was due by March 20, 2001.

(e) No Response was
received from the Respondent by the due date of March 20, 2001. On
March 22, 2001, Notification of Respondent Default was sent to the Respondent
by email using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Notification
of Complaint. No reply by the Respondent to the Notification of Respondent Default
was received.

(f) Having received
a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality from the Panelist,
the Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative
Panel on April 2, 2001. The Projected Decision Date was April 15, 2001. The
Panelist sought an extension in accordance with Paragraph 15(b) of the Rules.

(g) Having reviewed
the communication records in the case file, the Panelist finds that the Center
has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to
employ all reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to
Respondent". As such, the Panelist’s decision is based upon the Complaint,
the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules without the benefit of any
Response from the Respondent.

4. Factual Background

- The Complainant

The Complainant is Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. It is the owner of US Trademark Registration Number 1,783,039,
registered July 20, 1993, for the mark WAL-MART for retail department
store services in class 42. A copy of the registration is attached to the Complaint
(Annex C). This registration is based on first use of the mark on July 1, 1962.
The Complainant also holds registrations for the WAL-MART mark in 46
countries. These rights pre-date the Respondent's registration of the domain
name in issue.

The Complainant currently
operates some 3000 stores and offices throughout the United States and 1000
outside America. It is stated to be the world's number one retailer with stores
in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, China,
the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Germany and Korea.

The Complainant makes extensive
use of the mark. The Complainant uses its WAL-MART mark on and in its
discount retail stores, grocery stores, membership warehouse clubs, pharmacies,
deep discount warehouse outlets, advertising throughout the world, websites,
scholarship programs, telethons for children's hospitals, industrial development
grants, environmental programs and a variety of community support programs.
The Internet is a significant vehicle for the Complainant. It has websites located
at, among other Internet addresses, <walmart.com>, <wal-mart.com>
and <walmartstores.com>. These websites are an important part of the Complainants'
corporate on-line identity and brand.

- The Respondent

According to the Better-Whois.com
database, the Respondent's domain name <ewalmart.com> was registered on
March 17, 2000, (Annex A to the Complaint). The site appears to be inactive.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends
that the Respondent’s domain name <ewalmart.com> is confusingly similar
to the trademark or service mark WAL-MART in which the Complainant has
rights. Reliance is placed on the similarity of the marks in their entireties
as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. It is asserted
that the second level domain name "ewalmart" is a combination of two words,
"walmart" and "e". The first word "walmart" is said to be virtually identical
in appearance and sound to the Complainant's mark WAL-MART. The Respondent
has merely added the letter "e" before the mark.

Further, the Complainant
states that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WAL-MART
mark because the mark is famous throughout the world. As such, the Complainant
asserts that buyers would be likely to think that any site connected with the
domain name originates from the Complainant. The Complainant states that the
Respondent's domain name is likely to confuse customers and cause them to believe
mistakenly that the domain name is associated with the Complainant's stores
and, specifically, the Complainant's electronic shopping services provided through
its on-line store. It notes that the letter "e", when added as a prefix to another
word (such as in "e-mail"), denotes an electronic or on-line presence, typically
through the offer of goods or services. The Complainant did not authorise the
Respondent's use of any domain name.

Further, the Complainant
contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name. Reliance is placed, first, on the fact that the Respondent
is not currently using the domain name in connection with any on-going business.
A search of websites found that the domain name is currently not being used
by the Respondent (see Annex E to the Complaint). In addition, the Complainant
has searched for and not found any evidence that the Respondent holds trademark
rights to the mark "ewalmart" anywhere in the world.

The Complainant also contends
that the domain name was registered in bad faith. It asserts on information
and belief, that the Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of
the Complainant's rights in its mark. It also asserts that the Respondent has
constructive notice of the Complainant's trademark rights by virtue of its registrations
in the United States and Korea as well as in many other countries and the use
of the trademark registration symbol when referencing the mark in print advertising
and on websites. As such, it is asserted that the Respondent logically also
had notice of the Complainant's registration for the domain name by reason of
the availability of easy to use WHOIS directories and the fact that a business
registrant would, at least, initially, seek registration of the .com version
of a proposed domain name.

Further, the Complainant
notes that the Respondent is not using the domain name with any on-going legitimate
business. Its only action to date has been to passively hold the domain name
since registration on March 16, 2000.

The Complainant also states
that the Respondent has provided false contact information in registering the
domain name. A search of Ireland's directories for "G.W." and "Mm Mmmm" suggests
that these are false names. Further, the e-mail address of the administrative
contact is not a working e-mail address. An e-mail sent to that address was
returned as a failed delivery (see Annex F to the Complaint).

The Complainant contends
that WIPO has recognised that the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly
similar to the mark of a complainant and the provision of false contact information
may constitute "bad faith" under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Reference is
made to the decisions in Hamburger Hamlets, Inc. v.Hallee Wachsmuth,
WIPO Case No. D2000–1548 (citing Chernow Communications v. Jonathan D. Kimball,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0119 and Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc. v.
Brown, WIPO Case No. D2000-0004.)

B. The Respondent

There is no evidence from
the Respondent.

6. Discussion and Findings

Melbourne IT has confirmed
that the Policy applies to the domain name. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires
the Complainant to make out three elements:

A. The "domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights"

The domain name in issue
is <ewalmart.com>. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark WAL-MART.
The Complainant has used the mark in connection with retail services as early
as July 1, 1962. The Complainant also provides electronic shopping services
through its on-line store under the WAL-MART mark. The Complainant also
has websites at the addresses indicated above.

In these circumstances,
the Panelist finds that the domain name <ewalmart.com> is "confusingly
similar" to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. The Respondent "has
no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name"

There is no evidence that
the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

If the Panelist finds any
of the matters set out in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy to be proved, based on
the evaluation of all the evidence, that is said to demonstrate the Respondent's
rights or legitimate interests to the domain name. There is no evidence of any
use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding
to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
in terms of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Further, there is no evidence that
the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it acquired
no trade mark or service mark rights in terms of Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Lastly, there is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate non
commercial fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to
misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue
in terms of Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

There is no other evidence
on which the Panelist can rely suggesting that the Respondent has rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

In these circumstances,
the Panelist finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the Complainant's registered trademark.

C. The "domain
name has been registered and is being used in bad faith"

If the Panelist finds evidence
of any of the matters set out in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy that shall be
evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The matters set out in
Paragraph 4(b) are as follows:

(i) Circumstances indicating
that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name for the purpose
of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to
the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of that
Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. There is no evidence
of any communication between the Respondent and the Complainant about the domain
name.

(ii) The Respondent
has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark
from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Complainant
has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. There is no evidence on this point.

(iii) The Respondent
has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business
of a competitor. Again, there is no evidence on this point.

(iv) By using the domain
name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain,
Internet users to the Respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location, or of
a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location. Again, there
is no evidence on this point.

There is no positive evidence
of any of these matters. The examples in Paragraph 4(b) however, are intended
to be illustrative, rather than exclusive: see Telstra Corporation Limited
v Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In that case, it was established
that "inaction" could constitute bad faith use with reliance on the following
factors:

- the respondent was
in breach of the relevant Australian business names legislation by virtue of
its failure to register its trading name.

- the respondent had
provided false address information for the purposes of its domain name registration
in breach of its warranty under paragraph 2(a) of the Policy.

- the complainant's
trademark is one of the best known trademarks in Australia and it was inconceivable
that the person or persons behind the respondent would not be aware of this
fact.

- by virtue of the widespread
use and reputation of the trademark in issue members of the public in Australia
would believe that the entity owning the domain name which included that trademark
was the complainant or in some way associated with the complainant.

- any realistic use
of the domain name must misrepresent an association with the complainant and
its goodwill resulting in passing off, breaches of Australian consumer protection
legislation and trademark infringement.

Here, all but the first
element is present. Its seems highly likely that the respondent has provided
false address information. Further, the trademark WAL-MART is extremely
well-known and it is very unlikely that the person or persons behind the Respondent
would not be aware of this fact. In these circumstances, the Panelist accepts
that there is likelihood that consumers would believe that the entity owning
the domain name was the Complainant or in some way associated with the Complainant.
Lastly, any realistic use of the domain name is likely to misrepresent an association
with the Complainant and, as such, to be liable to constitute passing off. As
such, the Panelist finds that the domain name has been registered and is being
used in bad faith.

7. Decision

In accordance with the
finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith, the Panelist orders that
the domain name <ewalmart.com> be transferred to the Complainant.